Master Solvers Club, posts up to June 2019

[Masse24]

Leb over weak 2 means, as we often see, different things to different people. They must be playing something like what I describe.

My choice on PROBLEM E was to pass, so I picked second best. But I was very close to pulling the trigger on  (b4) which would be this:
(2 ) - X - (P) - 2NT
( P ) - 3 - (P) - 3NT

But I (almost) chose it with a completely different understanding of what that sequence would mean. I interpret that sequence to mean game-values, stop, no 4-card suit. Yes the T842 is a bit on the skinny side of what we would define as a stop, hence my choice to convert the double. But it was close.

I must say I've never heard of the version of Leb you describe, but I am hardly an expert. Like with any gadget that has more than one way to play it, you must have that conversation with partner.

[jcreech]

Sorry Ken, I haven't heard of the variant of lebensohl that you describe.  Basically, the two variants are slow shows/fast denies or its reverse.  Both bids, regardless of variant, tends to deny four hearts.

[drac]

SOLVER: Wladislaus Dragwlya
        Castrum Sex
        Romania

Your Solutions for the May 2019 Contest
-------------------
PROBLEM A: 1 Notrump              100
PROBLEM B: 1 Heart                      70
PROBLEM C: 3 Diamonds           100
PROBLEM D: 2 Notrump                50
PROBLEM E: (b3)                            10
PROBLEM F: 2 Diamonds            100
PROBLEM G: 6 Spades                  80
PROBLEM H: Diamond King          80
                                                            590

[kenberg]

I took a little time for browsing with my morning coffee. I started with Steve Robinson's Washington Standard (2nd Ed.).  He has a discussion of Leb over weak2s, at least as he sees it.

Weak 2 of anything - X - Pass _?

Page 259: "If advancer jumps directly to 3NT he wants to play 3NT, normally ending the auction." He then goes on to discuss 2NT followed by 3NT. He describes this as a hand with a "doubtful stopper" such as Jxxx. Partner with a stiff spot card should pull, otherwise leave it in, including with xx.  That would work well on the hand in question.  Advancer is looking at four and infers that there are six on his left.   If his partner has as little as xx he should be ok since presumably one of the missing honors is stiff on his right. Otoh, if partner has a stiff spot in then presumably there is Hx on advancer's right, and they are about to run six spades tricks.

I don't know how widespread this view is but I don't think of Steve as eccentric, or at least no more eccentric than the rest of us (and thus not eccentric I guess). Eccentric or not, it makes some sense.

When we play Leb after 1NT-(2 something, natural) -? the stuation is very different. Opener could have anything from AQX to xx in overcaller's suit. In theory that's also true after weak2-X-Pass but the percentages change substantially. If weak2-X-Pass-3NT denies a stopper then I would bet that at least 90% of the time, probably more often,  the doubler will say "Well, I don't have one either".  Surely a more frequent situation is that the doubler has xx or Qx or stiff Q or some such, and if fourth hand thinks that is enough but a stiff spot is not enough, then the method Steve describes will work for them. 
So I am saying that yes, Leb is still used to work out the stopper situation, but Steve's way is apt to come up in a useful way more often than just bidding 3NT to deny a stopper.

Now how about BWS? They say:

"A direct, natural three-notrump advance strongly suggests that strain (bidding two notrump first is more tentative about notrump)." They do not elaborate on what "more tentative" means but it sounds, to me, like they might be suggesting something such as Steve's approach.  If they meant "bidding two notrump first denies a stopper" they would presumably phrase it that way. "more tentative" suggests that  advancer is saying "maybe this plays in 3NT, maybe not, I need some sort of help". Steve offers a prescription for what sort of help would be enough to give it a try.



For me, the basic part is that the stopper problem over weak2-X s apt to be very different from the stopper problem over 1NT-interference.

Whatever the case, once again the MSC hands lead to some thinking about just what means what. Had it occurred to me that bidding 3NT by going through 2NT would ask partner to sit with xx and pull with x I might have tried it, although sitting with, say a stiff Q might not go so well if the 2 call was on AJ9xxx.  Well, nothing's perfect.

[Masse24]

Thanks, Ken.

It helps to know the system. I had not confirmed the BWS version before my choice, which is dangerous.

Andersen's book has been on my list to buy since not long after I began to play, around a decade ago. My only sources for Leb thus far have been a hodgepodge of websites. I really should take the time to read it, unless you or Jim have a better suggestion for a thorough understanding. I do know Oliver has a pretty good lesson series from time to time, but I've never been able to fully match my availability with that series.

[kenberg]

Let's see what we can find that is written down. On specifically the (2something)-X-Leb-3 -3NT it appears that BWS "more tentative about notrump" and Robinson's explicit pull with x, sit with xx, are more or less on the same page.  Without a doubt, there are other approaches.

As to lessons: I think many are first rate.. Some of the Dare hands are quite a challenge. That said, care is needed in following the guidance about bidding. Different people like different approaches. This suggests caution.

Here is an example: A recent Dare hand had the stipulated auction  1   - 2 - 2 - 2 - 3 - 4 .   In the discussion afterward, I was a volunteer and the auction went  1 - 2 - 2 - 4 . I explained that imo this showed exactly three , a decent suit, enough values for game, and nothing extra. Bidding 2 over 2 does not even unequivocally show 3 cards, I might want the NT to be played from partner's side, but at any rate it says that I have more things that I want to describe about my hand. I didn't . I had a 3=4=2=4 shape with a  13 count (about 13 I forget exactly) and most of my values in and . If partner wants to go on, that's up to him, but I have said my piece. So we have the two auctions so far listed, but then on a different lesson a different guide was saying that to first bid 2 and then show three card support unequivocally shows a five card suit. Well, not for me, and apparently not for Arik either. Different strokes.

It's just a fact of life that different players, including very advanced ones, have differing ideas about agreements. If one approach was clearly better than all of the others, everyone would use it. That's not the way it is.

Anyway I like to see things written out.   Not everything, that would take more pages than I could read, but I think written is good.

[wackojack]

After 1N overcall and 2M-dbl I declare that I play Lebensohl.  Then I want to see how partner plays it.  FADS (fast denies stop) or FASS (fast shows stop).  If he says either I will accept that.  I can see that as Ken says maybe you should treat the intervention over 1N and response to a double over a weak 2 as different.  However to keep it simple I am happy with a consistent approach.  Yesterday I noticed that my partner in a Spur teams match declared Rubensohl on his profile and I agreed to play it.  I think I know the general principle in that I think of it as "transfer lebensohl"  I don't doubt that I would be stumped in certain situations but these things don't come up in 10 boards. 

[kenberg]

I aree with simplicity for Spur, and for much else. With the MSC, it;s an opportunity to explore some less simple matters, or at least to see them arise I got 10 out of 100 on E, and when I ssaw that 2NT followed by 3NT was the 100 point score I was seriously surprised. So I started thinking about it. and then looking some stuff up .   I will be intersted in what the panel says but BWS says that 2NT followed by 3NT is tentative. How tentative is tentative? Partner and Rho only hold three spades between them and I would say it is at least a bit more likely for Rho to hold 2 and partner 1 rather than the other way around. A priori, either of them is equally likely to be dealt two, but on some borderline hands my partner would decline to make the X holding 2.That is, he might look at his Qx of and say "If the Q were the Q instead of the Q then I would have a four card suit and I would double. But with a 3 card suit and a doubleton I'll pass". Anyway, with me and Lho holding 10 between us I expect pard to have a singleton fairly often.

I'll be interested in what the panel has to say, but if the panel takes "tentative" to mean sit with xx pull with x then I can see that this might work out.

I don't actually play this system with anyone. So yes, simple is good. But I was curious as to just how they came to think of 2NT then 3NT as a good choice, and I now think I ave some feeling for what "tentative" means. Maybe.

Playing Spur? Sure, I just agree to whatever and hope it doesn't actually come up. For MSC  there is time to discuss what means what.

[kenberg]

Problem E has now become my clear  favorite of this set. After 2 - X - Pass bidding 2NT then 3NT on Txxx gets top scoring. I now agree. My Bridge World came yesterday. The comments were fascinating [I comment within brackets on the comments]:

Zia: "This is the ugliest problem I have ever seen." [Zia chose a direct 3NT.]

Danny Kleinman: "Take me to Mr. Lebensohl so that I can strangle him with my bare hands." [I gather DK wished he could bid 2NT to play. The moderator notes that there is no Mr. Lebensohl, I expect DK was aware of that!]

Kit Woolsey: "(b5) [That's 2NT followed by 3 ] This should show a partial stopper and ask partner if he has some help in spades." [The moderator notes that in BWS going through Leb and then bidding 3 "shows a stopper plus the other major".]

Mark Feldman: "(b5)[The top scoring Leb route to 3NT] BWS defines two notrump then three no trump, in comparison to an immediate three notrump, as 'more tentative about notrump'.  Anything else seems worse."

I'll add to this later, I have to head out for a while. The moderator says "The panelists have done a good job of putting lipstick on this pig"

Ok, back.  A couple of thoughts. It's good, obviously, to know what the agreements are. This came up in the Kit Woolsey choice above. And I was not thinking straight about it either.

The moderator, commenting on the slow NT sequence, says "Partner should never sit with a void, nor with a low singleton and extra shape." Again, that's following the BWS idea that the slow NT shows a more tentative feeling about three notrump.  If partner has two spots then 3 no trump is likely to be fine, or at least they are unlikely to be able to run the first six spade tricks.

I can't say that this version of leb over weak2-X comes up all that often but I think that I like it.

[Masse24]

JUNE MSC

Time to be thinking The Bridge World MSC.

Link here: https://www.bridgeworld.com/indexphp.php?page=/pages/msc/mastersolversmainpage.html

Answers due MAY 10. Good luck!

[kenberg]

So far I have ot made it past Problem A. Is it really crazy to pass? There is a fair chance that partner's long suit is hearts and if he leads them we take the first 9 tricks for +300. If he leads something else there is still a reasonable hope that partner will get in before declarer takes 7 tricks and maybe before he takes 6 tricks. It's not likely that we can make 5 .

I could bid 3 , which surely I can make, for +110 if I am allowed to play it, but I am far from sure I can set 3 of whatever they might compete to. And 4 might make but also it might not.

So it's weird, but I am thinking of passing. No, I am not bidding 3NT. Yes I see 9 tricks, and i suppose Lho might lead a if I jump to 3NT, just as partner might lead a if I pass 1NT. But I am not doing this.

I need to look at some others.

[Masse24]

Not weird at all. In fact, I will need to be convinced to do something other than Pass. Yes, it's a crap shoot hoping to "get in" before they collect their tricks.

Maybe taking the sure 110 playing 3 clubs is better than the prayer involved with a pass.

[jcreech]

Preliminary thoughts:

Problem A:  Without help from partner, it looks like it is down 300.  If I double, they will run somewhere, and the only chance to get to 600 is to bid game myself.  I fear that I will go minus when I already had a sure plus.  I will settle for what the bridge gods have given me.

Problem B:  I have a semi-balanced 18, and either 2N or 3 could be right.  I tend to prefer showing my suits, so I think (c) may be the best choice.  Plus why are they so certain that partner will bid hearts.  Why not clubs or a diamond raise?  It seems like a very narrow range for planning.

Problem C:  17 HCPs and two suits.  Double seems to be the most flexible.  If partner likes diamonds, I can always show my double stop in hearts and try NT.  Not real happy if partner bids lebensohl.

Problem D:  My first thought was why didn’t I open 4 initially.  My second thought is why don’t I bid 4S now?  I can see that a perfecto could result in a makeable slam, but then Hamman used to say, if you need to find me with a specific card, I won’t have it.  I need about 4 of 6 specific cards, so I will go with my second thought.

Problem E:  I have too many points and primes to pass partner’s overcall, but no fit in spades.  I think my best action is to bid 1NT and await developments.

Problem F:  I am inclined to take some action, but I don’t like my options.  I really don’t want to bid the 4 level in clubs, I don’t want to double without spades (and then feel like I have to pull to clubs).  I guess I am likely to take the wimpy way out and pass, and hope that partner will borrow some of my points to bid.

Problem G:  So many possibilities – from pass, with a possibility of a pass out due to all the spades, to opening 2 to push the level, to opening one in either or based on the rule of 20.  Haven’t decided which way to go yet.

Problem H:  Well a is out, but what is in?  A club doesn’t sound right, even if partner has a stack, how will it help if I solve the suit for them.  That leaves the unbids, and I am not willing to chose yet.

[Masse24]

First stab. Will probably just submit these unless a good night's sleep opens my eyes to something I've missed.

PROBLEM A: Pass. Making this a race! Do they have six pointy suit tricks before a round suit is played? The upside of Pass is just too great, in my opinion, to consider the other possibility, 3 . Am I missing something? Presumably so, since these problems are supposed to have multiple possible answers. I see two.

PROBLEM B: A1 (2NT/3D/3H). A heavy 2NT? Maybe somewhat. 3 jump-shift? A bit flattish for that, though possible. If I move a club to the hearts, I jump. After 2NT, I simply accept the transfer, so . . . 3 .

PROBLEM C: 2 . Having a max is permitted. My second choice is 2NT, a close call. Double does not interest me.

PROBLEM D: 4 . If I were 6-4, I would introduce the diamond suit. But 7-4 I’ll treat as one-suited. No diamond slam today. The next question to answer is how high? My initial thought was 3 (which I would bid with six), but the suit quality is just too good to risk missing game. Several years ago, I would more closely toe-the-line with regard to HCP, but I’ve evolved my thinking to look at trick taking potential. Like here.
I'll add that I worry about this one.

PROBLEM E: 1NT. No brainer? Unanimous? 😊 LOL.

PROBLEM F: 4 . Unimaginative. The LTC convinces me. And the hearts are still in play.

PROBLEM G: 1 . Although I strongly considered 2 (they teach us, as beginners, not to preempt with a 4-card major, but keep silent about a 5-carder!) 😊 If we preempt first, then in competition show the spades, partner should get a fair idea of our hand. Except as ugly as it is, the hand has 27 ZARs!
A side note: If opened at the one-level, I believe Steve Robinson (I read this years ago in his Dist. 6 articles) would skip the suit and open 1 . I get that logic if you have the reds, but with one suit being spades, I just do not get not opening 1 . You can show the spades over any response. Twice if given the opportunity.
I seem to recall a previous MSC problem where a hand like this was opened with a weak two that was overcalled. The bidding came round to opener without an advance, and the winning rebid was to introduce the major. Wish I could remember how long ago. Reading it again might have affected my choice to open 1 .

PROBLEM H: J. Safe. Gives nothing away. Let declarer break (and guess) the suit. Second choice, 4th best spade, which I think will be the plurality choice.

[Masse24]

Submitted. No changes from above.

SOLUTIONS FOR:
Todd Holes
Glen Ellyn IL
U.S.A.

PROBLEM A: Pass
PROBLEM B: (a1)
PROBLEM C: 2 Spades
PROBLEM D: 4 Spades
PROBLEM E: 1 Notrump
PROBLEM F: 4 Clubs
PROBLEM G: 1 Diamond
PROBLEM H: Heart Jack